When I heard them trying to blame the previous government again at the weekend for the fact that they've not managed to do much with regard to the deficit (apparently after two years being in power they've only just found that it's bigger than they had thought), I pretty much knew this was coming. It's hardly a surprise. What exactly did they think would happen when they decided to cut spending so fast and take all that money out of government and local government procurement... these things have a massive effect on private companies, and that's what we're seeing. Fucking useless wankers.

As to a General Election... we can but hope, even if Labour are only a shade better.

When I heard them trying to blame the previous government again at the weekend for the fact that they've not managed to do much with regard to the deficit (apparently after two years being in power they've only just found that it's bigger than they had thought), I pretty much knew this was coming. It's hardly a surprise. What exactly did they think would happen when they decided to cut spending so fast and take all that money out of government and local government procurement... these things have a massive effect on private companies, and that's what we're seeing. Fucking useless wankers.

As to a General Election... we can but hope, even if Labour are only a shade better.

[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]When I heard them trying to blame the previous government again at the weekend for the fact that they've not managed to do much with regard to the deficit (apparently after two years being in power they've only just found that it's bigger than they had thought), I pretty much knew this was coming. It's hardly a surprise. What exactly did they think would happen when they decided to cut spending so fast and take all that money out of government and local government procurement... these things have a massive effect on private companies, and that's what we're seeing. Fucking useless wankers.

As to a General Election... we can but hope, even if Labour are only a shade better. [/quote]

Opinion polls for Tories have started to turn dire. Once the news from Leveson and the economy start to filter into polls in the next few days things will start to look catastrophic. I wouldn't be surprised if there was internal coup to oust Cameron and Osbourne.

DigitalAntichrist wrote:

When I heard them trying to blame the previous government again at the weekend for the fact that they've not managed to do much with regard to the deficit (apparently after two years being in power they've only just found that it's bigger than they had thought), I pretty much knew this was coming. It's hardly a surprise. What exactly did they think would happen when they decided to cut spending so fast and take all that money out of government and local government procurement... these things have a massive effect on private companies, and that's what we're seeing. Fucking useless wankers.

As to a General Election... we can but hope, even if Labour are only a shade better.

Opinion polls for Tories have started to turn dire. Once the news from Leveson and the economy start to filter into polls in the next few days things will start to look catastrophic. I wouldn't be surprised if there was internal coup to oust Cameron and Osbourne.

The Grauniad have quoted a tweet from C4's Faisal Islam: "In all 8 quarters since the Chancellor arrived at Number 11, economy has grown 0.4% vs 4.3% predicted by June 2010 deficit reduction plan". When the figures are laid out like that, it further reveals just how badly the current government have handled the economy. The term omnishambles is looking kind.

The Grauniad have quoted a tweet from C4's Faisal Islam: "In all 8 quarters since the Chancellor arrived at Number 11, economy has grown 0.4% vs 4.3% predicted by June 2010 deficit reduction plan". When the figures are laid out like that, it further reveals just how badly the current government have handled the economy. The term omnishambles is looking kind.

[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]There was growth in 2009 and early 2010.[/quote]

By downhill I mean we're fucked, end of the era of boom/bust years and into the new era of bubble bursts, banker rapage and consolidation of power. [/quote]

Well, to be fair, that 'new' era started in the late 70s when the Keynesian consensus came to an end and neoliberals started to deregulate, privatise, and do pretty much everything your economic ideology demands. The invisible hand of the market is so invisible as to be non-existent.

otester wrote:

DigitalAntichrist wrote:

There was growth in 2009 and early 2010.

By downhill I mean we're fucked, end of the era of boom/bust years and into the new era of bubble bursts, banker rapage and consolidation of power.

Well, to be fair, that 'new' era started in the late 70s when the Keynesian consensus came to an end and neoliberals started to deregulate, privatise, and do pretty much everything your economic ideology demands. The invisible hand of the market is so invisible as to be non-existent.

[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]By downhill I mean we're fucked, end of the era of boom/bust years and into the new era of bubble bursts, banker rapage and consolidation of power.[/quote]

Well, to be fair, that 'new' era started in the late 70s when the Keynesian consensus came to an end and neoliberals started to deregulate, privatise, and do pretty much everything your economic ideology demands. The invisible hand of the market is so invisible as to be non-existent.

[/quote]

The issue wasn't the deregulation that was the problem, it was the bailouts, had they not happened Goldman Sachs may well not be here today along with a load of other big banks/corporations.

That's why I count 2008 as the beginning of the end, from now on it will bailouts after each bubble bursts, making the bankers even more powerful along with those that bet against the failing economy (something I plan to do).

DigitalAntichrist wrote:

otester wrote:

By downhill I mean we're fucked, end of the era of boom/bust years and into the new era of bubble bursts, banker rapage and consolidation of power.

Well, to be fair, that 'new' era started in the late 70s when the Keynesian consensus came to an end and neoliberals started to deregulate, privatise, and do pretty much everything your economic ideology demands. The invisible hand of the market is so invisible as to be non-existent.

The issue wasn't the deregulation that was the problem, it was the bailouts, had they not happened Goldman Sachs may well not be here today along with a load of other big banks/corporations.

That's why I count 2008 as the beginning of the end, from now on it will bailouts after each bubble bursts, making the bankers even more powerful along with those that bet against the failing economy (something I plan to do).

[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Well, to be fair, that 'new' era started in the late 70s when the Keynesian consensus came to an end and neoliberals started to deregulate, privatise, and do pretty much everything your economic ideology demands. The invisible hand of the market is so invisible as to be non-existent.

[/quote]

The issue wasn't the deregulation that was the problem, it was the bailouts, had they not happened Goldman Sachs may well not be here today along with a load of other big banks/corporations.

That's why I count 2008 as the beginning of the end, from now on it will bailouts after each bubble bursts, making the bankers even more powerful along with those that bet against the failing economy (something I plan to do). [/quote]

Otester, what happened to allow the banks to get away with what they did in order for the bailout to be seen as necessary? The entire financial services sector was deregulated - banking, mortgages, the lot, the sector grew, it behaved badly, these people thought that they were masters of the universe, and they were masters of their own little universe because of the light-tough policies of regulation/deregulation put in place by governments the world over. They were enormously powerful before the crash thanks to the deregulation, and they continue to be powerful because governments are still beholden to the markets. Frankly, what you count as the beginning of the end is neither hear nor there. This would not have happened if the post war consensus with regard to regulation had continued. The fact that nothing of this scale happened in the period of post-depression regulation speaks volumes, and only someone as chronically deaf as yourself could fail to hear that.

otester wrote:

DigitalAntichrist wrote:

Well, to be fair, that 'new' era started in the late 70s when the Keynesian consensus came to an end and neoliberals started to deregulate, privatise, and do pretty much everything your economic ideology demands. The invisible hand of the market is so invisible as to be non-existent.

The issue wasn't the deregulation that was the problem, it was the bailouts, had they not happened Goldman Sachs may well not be here today along with a load of other big banks/corporations.

That's why I count 2008 as the beginning of the end, from now on it will bailouts after each bubble bursts, making the bankers even more powerful along with those that bet against the failing economy (something I plan to do).

Otester, what happened to allow the banks to get away with what they did in order for the bailout to be seen as necessary? The entire financial services sector was deregulated - banking, mortgages, the lot, the sector grew, it behaved badly, these people thought that they were masters of the universe, and they were masters of their own little universe because of the light-tough policies of regulation/deregulation put in place by governments the world over. They were enormously powerful before the crash thanks to the deregulation, and they continue to be powerful because governments are still beholden to the markets. Frankly, what you count as the beginning of the end is neither hear nor there. This would not have happened if the post war consensus with regard to regulation had continued. The fact that nothing of this scale happened in the period of post-depression regulation speaks volumes, and only someone as chronically deaf as yourself could fail to hear that.

[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]That's why I count 2008 as the beginning of the end, from now on it will bailouts after each bubble bursts, making the bankers even more powerful along with those that bet against the failing economy (something I plan to do).[/quote]

Otester, what happened to allow the banks to get away with what they did in order for the bailout to be necessary? The entire financial services sector was deregulated - banking, mortgages, the lot, they were enormously powerful before the crash thanks to the deregulation, and they continue to be powerful because governments are still beholden to the markets. Frankly, what you count as the beginning of the end is neither hear nor there. This would not have happened if the post war consensus with regard to regulation had continued. The fact that nothing of this scale happened in the period of post-depression regulation speaks volumes, and only someone as chronically deaf as yourself could fail to hear that. [/quote]

In my eyes a bailout amounts to robbery.

They should have been left to rot, along with everyone else that invested in them, the free market way.

DigitalAntichrist wrote:

otester wrote:

That's why I count 2008 as the beginning of the end, from now on it will bailouts after each bubble bursts, making the bankers even more powerful along with those that bet against the failing economy (something I plan to do).

Otester, what happened to allow the banks to get away with what they did in order for the bailout to be necessary? The entire financial services sector was deregulated - banking, mortgages, the lot, they were enormously powerful before the crash thanks to the deregulation, and they continue to be powerful because governments are still beholden to the markets. Frankly, what you count as the beginning of the end is neither hear nor there. This would not have happened if the post war consensus with regard to regulation had continued. The fact that nothing of this scale happened in the period of post-depression regulation speaks volumes, and only someone as chronically deaf as yourself could fail to hear that.

In my eyes a bailout amounts to robbery.

They should have been left to rot, along with everyone else that invested in them, the free market way.

[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Otester, what happened to allow the banks to get away with what they did in order for the bailout to be necessary? The entire financial services sector was deregulated - banking, mortgages, the lot, they were enormously powerful before the crash thanks to the deregulation, and they continue to be powerful because governments are still beholden to the markets. Frankly, what you count as the beginning of the end is neither hear nor there. This would not have happened if the post war consensus with regard to regulation had continued. The fact that nothing of this scale happened in the period of post-depression regulation speaks volumes, and only someone as chronically deaf as yourself could fail to hear that.[/quote]

In my eyes a bailout amounts to robbery.

They should have been left to rot, along with everyone else that invested in them, the free market way. [/quote]

And the effect on pension funds, and millions of innocent people, would have been devastating. Oh, but I remember now, in Otester world that doesn't matter, the poorpers, peasants and plebs get what they deserve, right?...

otester wrote:

DigitalAntichrist wrote:

Otester, what happened to allow the banks to get away with what they did in order for the bailout to be necessary? The entire financial services sector was deregulated - banking, mortgages, the lot, they were enormously powerful before the crash thanks to the deregulation, and they continue to be powerful because governments are still beholden to the markets. Frankly, what you count as the beginning of the end is neither hear nor there. This would not have happened if the post war consensus with regard to regulation had continued. The fact that nothing of this scale happened in the period of post-depression regulation speaks volumes, and only someone as chronically deaf as yourself could fail to hear that.

In my eyes a bailout amounts to robbery.

They should have been left to rot, along with everyone else that invested in them, the free market way.

And the effect on pension funds, and millions of innocent people, would have been devastating. Oh, but I remember now, in Otester world that doesn't matter, the poorpers, peasants and plebs get what they deserve, right?...

[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]They should have been left to rot, along with everyone else that invested in them, the free market way. [/quote]

And the effect on pension funds, and millions of innocent people, would have been devastating. Oh, but I remember now, in Otester world that doesn't matter, the poorpers, peasants and plebs get what they deserve, right?... [/quote]

It'd be a lesson as to why you leave the free market alone in the first place and not let bankers get in such a position of power where a single fuck up can decide the fate of millions.

DigitalAntichrist wrote:

otester wrote:

They should have been left to rot, along with everyone else that invested in them, the free market way.

And the effect on pension funds, and millions of innocent people, would have been devastating. Oh, but I remember now, in Otester world that doesn't matter, the poorpers, peasants and plebs get what they deserve, right?...

It'd be a lesson as to why you leave the free market alone in the first place and not let bankers get in such a position of power where a single fuck up can decide the fate of millions.

[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]And the effect on pension funds, and millions of innocent people, would have been devastating. Oh, but I remember now, in Otester world that doesn't matter, the poorpers, peasants and plebs get what they deserve, right?...[/quote]

It'd be a lesson as to why you leave the free market alone in the first place and not let bankers get in such a position of power where a single fuck up can decide the fate of millions. [/quote]

No, it'd be a lesson on why regulation was needed.

You really do have everything arse-backwards.

Your argument seems to be one where a deregulated market wasn't good enough, what was actually needed was a completely free unregulated market... as if the bankers would have behaved better without any regulation. It is utterly bonkers.

otester wrote:

DigitalAntichrist wrote:

And the effect on pension funds, and millions of innocent people, would have been devastating. Oh, but I remember now, in Otester world that doesn't matter, the poorpers, peasants and plebs get what they deserve, right?...

It'd be a lesson as to why you leave the free market alone in the first place and not let bankers get in such a position of power where a single fuck up can decide the fate of millions.

No, it'd be a lesson on why regulation was needed.

You really do have everything arse-backwards.

Your argument seems to be one where a deregulated market wasn't good enough, what was actually needed was a completely free unregulated market... as if the bankers would have behaved better without any regulation. It is utterly bonkers.

[quote user=otester]The issue wasn't the deregulation that was the problem, it was the bailouts, had they not happened Goldman Sachs may well not be here today along with a load of other big banks/corporations.[/quote]

GS didn't mess up. They made the RIGHT investments by short-selling instruments prior to the collapse.

GS faced bankruptcy because other institutions made bad investments. If the Government hadn't supported the financial sector, then it wouldn't matter if you made right investments or wrong - you would go bankrupt either way. Nobody would invest. Corporations wouldn't pay employees (working capital couldn't be collected). Healthy companies would have to declare bankruptcy at no fault of their own.

This is exactly what was happening - even businesses such as McDonalds, Walmart, and GE were on the edge of bankruptcy simply because nobody would give them the capital to pay their workers.

Others have pointed out that these sorts of crashes happened nearly every decade prior to the Great Depression. Sure, they slowed growth - and 17th/18th/19th Century growth was quite bad by today's standards - but they progressively became worse until we corrected them in the 30s. As workers moved away from farms and into factories, financial crisis started causing mass unemployment, which significantly reduces the wealth of the nation.

otester wrote:

The issue wasn't the deregulation that was the problem, it was the bailouts, had they not happened Goldman Sachs may well not be here today along with a load of other big banks/corporations.

GS didn't mess up. They made the RIGHT investments by short-selling instruments prior to the collapse.

GS faced bankruptcy because other institutions made bad investments. If the Government hadn't supported the financial sector, then it wouldn't matter if you made right investments or wrong - you would go bankrupt either way. Nobody would invest. Corporations wouldn't pay employees (working capital couldn't be collected). Healthy companies would have to declare bankruptcy at no fault of their own.

This is exactly what was happening - even businesses such as McDonalds, Walmart, and GE were on the edge of bankruptcy simply because nobody would give them the capital to pay their workers.

Others have pointed out that these sorts of crashes happened nearly every decade prior to the Great Depression. Sure, they slowed growth - and 17th/18th/19th Century growth was quite bad by today's standards - but they progressively became worse until we corrected them in the 30s. As workers moved away from farms and into factories, financial crisis started causing mass unemployment, which significantly reduces the wealth of the nation.

I'm also a bit perplexed as to how the US' financial "bailout" is responsible for the UK's follow-up recession.

The bailout worked. Liquidity was restored. The temporary loans were repaid with interest. The US is recovering a bit faster than projected - the growth since the bottom of the recession has been quite fast. By all standard measures, we are following a "best case" scenario.

I'm sure even UK Conservatives know "Austerity" slows growth and risks short-term recession - even if they don't say it, their models agree. The reason you implement "Austerity" is so you can give investors and banks more power... so they can be sure inflation will not reduce their returns and they don't raise interest rates.

If you take a supply-side approach to things, then you'd naturally prefer the system that helps the rich, so they can create jobs. The old Keynesian methods focus on demand and push growth by giving more power to workers, through more jobs and thus higher demand for labor.

I'm also a bit perplexed as to how the US' financial "bailout" is responsible for the UK's follow-up recession.

The bailout worked. Liquidity was restored. The temporary loans were repaid with interest. The US is recovering a bit faster than projected - the growth since the bottom of the recession has been quite fast. By all standard measures, we are following a "best case" scenario.

I'm sure even UK Conservatives know "Austerity" slows growth and risks short-term recession - even if they don't say it, their models agree. The reason you implement "Austerity" is so you can give investors and banks more power... so they can be sure inflation will not reduce their returns and they don't raise interest rates.

If you take a supply-side approach to things, then you'd naturally prefer the system that helps the rich, so they can create jobs. The old Keynesian methods focus on demand and push growth by giving more power to workers, through more jobs and thus higher demand for labor.

[quote user=EricManning] [quote user=otester]The issue wasn't the deregulation that was the problem, it was the bailouts, had they not happened Goldman Sachs may well not be here today along with a load of other big banks/corporations.[/quote]

GS didn't mess up. They made the RIGHT investments by short-selling instruments prior to the collapse.

GS faced bankruptcy because other institutions made bad investments. If the Government hadn't supported the financial sector, then it wouldn't matter if you made right investments or wrong - you would go bankrupt either way. Nobody would invest. Corporations wouldn't pay employees (working capital couldn't be collected). Healthy companies would have to declare bankruptcy at no fault of their own.

This is exactly what was happening - even businesses such as McDonalds, Walmart, and GE were on the edge of bankruptcy simply because nobody would give them the capital to pay their workers.

Others have pointed out that these sorts of crashes happened nearly every decade prior to the Great Depression. Sure, they slowed growth - and 17th/18th/19th Century growth was quite bad by today's standards - but they progressively became worse until we corrected them in the 30s. As workers moved away from farms and into factories, financial crisis started causing mass unemployment, which significantly reduces the wealth of the nation. [/quote]

GS was just an easy example, government doesn't bail AIG, GS goes down.

EricManning wrote:

otester wrote:

The issue wasn't the deregulation that was the problem, it was the bailouts, had they not happened Goldman Sachs may well not be here today along with a load of other big banks/corporations.

GS didn't mess up. They made the RIGHT investments by short-selling instruments prior to the collapse.

GS faced bankruptcy because other institutions made bad investments. If the Government hadn't supported the financial sector, then it wouldn't matter if you made right investments or wrong - you would go bankrupt either way. Nobody would invest. Corporations wouldn't pay employees (working capital couldn't be collected). Healthy companies would have to declare bankruptcy at no fault of their own.

This is exactly what was happening - even businesses such as McDonalds, Walmart, and GE were on the edge of bankruptcy simply because nobody would give them the capital to pay their workers.

Others have pointed out that these sorts of crashes happened nearly every decade prior to the Great Depression. Sure, they slowed growth - and 17th/18th/19th Century growth was quite bad by today's standards - but they progressively became worse until we corrected them in the 30s. As workers moved away from farms and into factories, financial crisis started causing mass unemployment, which significantly reduces the wealth of the nation.

GS was just an easy example, government doesn't bail AIG, GS goes down.

[quote user=otester] [quote user=EricManning]Others have pointed out that these sorts of crashes happened nearly every decade prior to the Great Depression. Sure, they slowed growth - and 17th/18th/19th Century growth was quite bad by today's standards - but they progressively became worse until we corrected them in the 30s. As workers moved away from farms and into factories, financial crisis started causing mass unemployment, which significantly reduces the wealth of the nation. [/quote]

Apparently if AIG went down, GS would have lost $20 billion. At the time though, GS had almost $50 billion in equity. Tjhat's according to newspaper reports of the time.

otester wrote:

EricManning wrote:

Others have pointed out that these sorts of crashes happened nearly every decade prior to the Great Depression. Sure, they slowed growth - and 17th/18th/19th Century growth was quite bad by today's standards - but they progressively became worse until we corrected them in the 30s. As workers moved away from farms and into factories, financial crisis started causing mass unemployment, which significantly reduces the wealth of the nation.

GS was just an easy example, government doesn't bail AIG, GS goes down.

Apparently if AIG went down, GS would have lost $20 billion. At the time though, GS had almost $50 billion in equity. Tjhat's according to newspaper reports of the time.

Seems to match what I expected. In the 1800s and early 1900s, the US faced such crisis every decade or so. Nothing like it happened again, until S&L, which was pretty much a miniature financial crisis from a sector Reagan deregulated, eventually corrected by a Government rescue. 2008 was pretty much this, but on a global scale and with equities of several Trillion dollars.

Arguing for the collapse of GS just seems to be a bad example.... you are effectively agreeing everyone could go bankrupt, even those who correctly bet housing was going to collapse.

The entire point of the "bailout" was to prevent a bad investment group from bringing down the entire sector.

Seems to match what I expected. In the 1800s and early 1900s, the US faced such crisis every decade or so. Nothing like it happened again, until S&L, which was pretty much a miniature financial crisis from a sector Reagan deregulated, eventually corrected by a Government rescue. 2008 was pretty much this, but on a global scale and with equities of several Trillion dollars.

[quote user=EricManning] Arguing for the collapse of GS just seems to be a bad example.... you are effectively agreeing everyone could go bankrupt, even those who correctly bet housing was going to collapse.

The entire point of the "bailout" was to prevent a bad investment group from bringing down the entire sector. [/quote]

I'm saying the free-market should be left to sort it out, for better or worse and iirc it was GS that fucked with their clients so they could profit off them.

Now we are in a situation where the banks are better off and poised to rape even more...

EricManning wrote:

Arguing for the collapse of GS just seems to be a bad example.... you are effectively agreeing everyone could go bankrupt, even those who correctly bet housing was going to collapse.

The entire point of the "bailout" was to prevent a bad investment group from bringing down the entire sector.

I'm saying the free-market should be left to sort it out, for better or worse and iirc it was GS that fucked with their clients so they could profit off them.

Now we are in a situation where the banks are better off and poised to rape even more...

Capitalism works best for everyone when there is strong regulation. It's like a twisty road with good curbs and guardrails. Without them, jackasses would be flying off the road once a week. Our entire economy practically, is based on "consumer confidence" If people dont buy anything our economy collapses. Who wants to buy anything when everything is going tits up once a month?

Capitalism works best for everyone when there is strong regulation. It's like a twisty road with good curbs and guardrails. Without them, jackasses would be flying off the road once a week. Our entire economy practically, is based on "consumer confidence" If people dont buy anything our economy collapses. Who wants to buy anything when everything is going tits up once a month?

[quote user=sailirish7]Capitalism works best for everyone when there is strong regulation.[/quote]

.That's probably been the view of the financial sector from the 30s... I agree, it did seem to stop the huge collapses. It might be the best option - I don't know.

.However, there has been a slow shift since the 70s-80s in politics and economics that you might edge out slightly faster growth if you allow the free-market to work, but you use the Government to maintain liquidity when it inevitably crashes. And it will crash - everyone agrees unregulated markets crash a lot.

.Economists on the right - Friedman, or Greenspan for instance - usually favor the bubble / bailout approach. The last crash was so severe, I think a lot of people aren't so sure about this method anymore..I think it's a pretty mainstream view that the worst thing you can do is allow the free-market to run wild and just do nothing about the crashes. That's the Great Depression, and not even the most free-market Economists since Hayek advocate this.

sailirish7 wrote:

Capitalism works best for everyone when there is strong regulation.

.That's probably been the view of the financial sector from the 30s... I agree, it did seem to stop the huge collapses. It might be the best option - I don't know.

.However, there has been a slow shift since the 70s-80s in politics and economics that you might edge out slightly faster growth if you allow the free-market to work, but you use the Government to maintain liquidity when it inevitably crashes. And it will crash - everyone agrees unregulated markets crash a lot.

.Economists on the right - Friedman, or Greenspan for instance - usually favor the bubble / bailout approach. The last crash was so severe, I think a lot of people aren't so sure about this method anymore..I think it's a pretty mainstream view that the worst thing you can do is allow the free-market to run wild and just do nothing about the crashes. That's the Great Depression, and not even the most free-market Economists since Hayek advocate this.

[quote user=sailirish7] Capitalism works best for everyone when there is strong regulation. It's like a twisty road with good curbs and guardrails. Without them, jackasses would be flying off the road once a week. Our entire economy practically, is based on "consumer confidence" If people dont buy anything our economy collapses. Who wants to buy anything when everything is going tits up once a month? [/quote]

Capitalism + Regulation = Oligarchy.

Don't get involved with the shit that goes tits up once a month then.

sailirish7 wrote:

Capitalism works best for everyone when there is strong regulation. It's like a twisty road with good curbs and guardrails. Without them, jackasses would be flying off the road once a week. Our entire economy practically, is based on "consumer confidence" If people dont buy anything our economy collapses. Who wants to buy anything when everything is going tits up once a month?

[quote user=otester] [quote user=sailirish7] when there is strong regulation. It's like a twisty road with good curbs and guardrails. Without them, jackasses would be flying off the road once a week. Our entire economy practically, is based on "consumer confidence" If people dont buy anything our economy collapses. Who wants to buy anything when everything is going tits up once a month?[/quote]

Don't get involved with the shit that goes tits up once a month then. [/quote]

Otester, I don't know if sailirish meant this, but when I see the term 'everyone' I tend to include those who don't invest, who don't get involved in shit that goes tits up or stuff that does well. I think the point he was making about buying things and consumer confidence being important included those who don't get involved (invest) in the shit that goes tits up... whether or not you invest, it has an effect. I don't know about you, but I had no money invested in the markets one way or t'other, but it still had an effect on my life... the same could be said of pretty much everyone.

otester wrote:

sailirish7 wrote:

when there is strong regulation. It's like a twisty road with good curbs and guardrails. Without them, jackasses would be flying off the road once a week. Our entire economy practically, is based on "consumer confidence" If people dont buy anything our economy collapses. Who wants to buy anything when everything is going tits up once a month?

Don't get involved with the shit that goes tits up once a month then.

Otester, I don't know if sailirish meant this, but when I see the term 'everyone' I tend to include those who don't invest, who don't get involved in shit that goes tits up or stuff that does well. I think the point he was making about buying things and consumer confidence being important included those who don't get involved (invest) in the shit that goes tits up... whether or not you invest, it has an effect. I don't know about you, but I had no money invested in the markets one way or t'other, but it still had an effect on my life... the same could be said of pretty much everyone.

[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]Don't get involved with the shit that goes tits up once a month then.[/quote]

Otester, I don't know if sailirish meant this, but when I see the term 'everyone' I tend to include those who don't invest, who don't get involved in shit that goes tits up or stuff that does well. I think the point he was making about buying things and consumer confidence being important included those who don't get involved (invest) in the shit that goes tits up... whether or not you invest, it has an effect. I don't know about you, but I had no money invested in the markets one way or t'other, but it still had an effect on my life... the same could be said of pretty much everyone. [/quote]

Just get people to use alternatives to banks like credit unions etc.

DigitalAntichrist wrote:

otester wrote:

Don't get involved with the shit that goes tits up once a month then.

Otester, I don't know if sailirish meant this, but when I see the term 'everyone' I tend to include those who don't invest, who don't get involved in shit that goes tits up or stuff that does well. I think the point he was making about buying things and consumer confidence being important included those who don't get involved (invest) in the shit that goes tits up... whether or not you invest, it has an effect. I don't know about you, but I had no money invested in the markets one way or t'other, but it still had an effect on my life... the same could be said of pretty much everyone.

[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]Don't get involved with the shit that goes tits up once a month then.[/quote]

Otester, I don't know if sailirish meant this, but when I see the term 'everyone' I tend to include those who don't invest, who don't get involved in shit that goes tits up or stuff that does well. I think the point he was making about buying things and consumer confidence being important included those who don't get involved (invest) in the shit that goes tits up... whether or not you invest, it has an effect. I don't know about you, but I had no money invested in the markets one way or t'other, but it still had an effect on my life... the same could be said of pretty much everyone. [/quote]

Thats why everyone was bolded

[quote user=otester] [quote user=sailirish7] when there is strong regulation. It's like a twisty road with good curbs and guardrails. Without them, jackasses would be flying off the road once a week. Our entire economy practically, is based on "consumer confidence" If people dont buy anything our economy collapses. Who wants to buy anything when everything is going tits up once a month?[/quote]

Capitalism + Regulation = Oligarchy.

Don't get involved with the shit that goes tits up once a month then. [/quote]

Oligarchy is what we have now. The lack of regulation and outright deregulation has allowed several industries to consolidate all business in the hands of a few large corporations. How is that good for anybody? Regulation should be common sense, spur competition, and make sure no one is getting ahead by screwing over the environment, their workers, or anyone else. I don't understand how the concept of fair play is anathema to you in this regard.

Prime example, investment firms should not be able to cover their losses using profits or monies from commercial banking. This is pretty common sense, yet thanks to the repeal of glass-steagal, that's exactly what happened.

DigitalAntichrist wrote:

otester wrote:

Don't get involved with the shit that goes tits up once a month then.

Otester, I don't know if sailirish meant this, but when I see the term 'everyone' I tend to include those who don't invest, who don't get involved in shit that goes tits up or stuff that does well. I think the point he was making about buying things and consumer confidence being important included those who don't get involved (invest) in the shit that goes tits up... whether or not you invest, it has an effect. I don't know about you, but I had no money invested in the markets one way or t'other, but it still had an effect on my life... the same could be said of pretty much everyone.

Thats why everyone was bolded

otester wrote:

sailirish7 wrote:

when there is strong regulation. It's like a twisty road with good curbs and guardrails. Without them, jackasses would be flying off the road once a week. Our entire economy practically, is based on "consumer confidence" If people dont buy anything our economy collapses. Who wants to buy anything when everything is going tits up once a month?

Capitalism + Regulation = Oligarchy.

Don't get involved with the shit that goes tits up once a month then.

Oligarchy is what we have now. The lack of regulation and outright deregulation has allowed several industries to consolidate all business in the hands of a few large corporations. How is that good for anybody? Regulation should be common sense, spur competition, and make sure no one is getting ahead by screwing over the environment, their workers, or anyone else. I don't understand how the concept of fair play is anathema to you in this regard.

Prime example, investment firms should not be able to cover their losses using profits or monies from commercial banking. This is pretty common sense, yet thanks to the repeal of glass-steagal, that's exactly what happened.

[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Otester, I don't know if sailirish meant this, but when I see the term 'everyone' I tend to include those who don't invest, who don't get involved in shit that goes tits up or stuff that does well. I think the point he was making about buying things and consumer confidence being important included those who don't get involved (invest) in the shit that goes tits up... whether or not you invest, it has an effect. I don't know about you, but I had no money invested in the markets one way or t'other, but it still had an effect on my life... the same could be said of pretty much everyone.[/quote]

Just get people to use alternatives to banks like credit unions etc. [/quote]

lol. Otester, the latest bubble was in finacial services and the mortgage industry, but not every bubble is... you're avoiding the real problem here - a lack of adequate regulation.

otester wrote:

DigitalAntichrist wrote:

Otester, I don't know if sailirish meant this, but when I see the term 'everyone' I tend to include those who don't invest, who don't get involved in shit that goes tits up or stuff that does well. I think the point he was making about buying things and consumer confidence being important included those who don't get involved (invest) in the shit that goes tits up... whether or not you invest, it has an effect. I don't know about you, but I had no money invested in the markets one way or t'other, but it still had an effect on my life... the same could be said of pretty much everyone.

Just get people to use alternatives to banks like credit unions etc.

lol. Otester, the latest bubble was in finacial services and the mortgage industry, but not every bubble is... you're avoiding the real problem here - a lack of adequate regulation.

[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]Just get people to use alternatives to banks like credit unions etc. [/quote]

lol. Otester, the latest bubble was in finacial services and the mortgage industry, but not every bubble is... you're avoiding the real problem here - a lack of adequate regulation. [/quote]

[quote user=sailirish7] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Otester, I don't know if sailirish meant this, but when I see the term 'everyone' I tend to include those who don't invest, who don't get involved in shit that goes tits up or stuff that does well. I think the point he was making about buying things and consumer confidence being important included those who don't get involved (invest) in the shit that goes tits up... whether or not you invest, it has an effect. I don't know about you, but I had no money invested in the markets one way or t'other, but it still had an effect on my life... the same could be said of pretty much everyone.[/quote]

Thats why everyone was bolded

[quote user=otester]Don't get involved with the shit that goes tits up once a month then.[/quote]

Oligarchy is what we have now. The lack of regulation and outright deregulation has allowed several industries to consolidate all business in the hands of a few large corporations. How is that good for anybody? Regulation should be common sense, spur competition, and make sure no one is getting ahead by screwing over the environment, their workers, or anyone else. I don't understand how the concept of fair play is anathema to you in this regard.

Prime example, investment firms should not be able to cover their losses using profits or monies from commercial banking. This is pretty common sense, yet thanks to the repeal of glass-steagal, that's exactly what happened. [/quote]

It was regulation in the first place that got us in this mess in the first place, way before the 70s etc.

Investment banks should be able to do what ever the fuck they want.

DigitalAntichrist wrote:

otester wrote:

Just get people to use alternatives to banks like credit unions etc.

lol. Otester, the latest bubble was in finacial services and the mortgage industry, but not every bubble is... you're avoiding the real problem here - a lack of adequate regulation.

sailirish7 wrote:

DigitalAntichrist wrote:

Otester, I don't know if sailirish meant this, but when I see the term 'everyone' I tend to include those who don't invest, who don't get involved in shit that goes tits up or stuff that does well. I think the point he was making about buying things and consumer confidence being important included those who don't get involved (invest) in the shit that goes tits up... whether or not you invest, it has an effect. I don't know about you, but I had no money invested in the markets one way or t'other, but it still had an effect on my life... the same could be said of pretty much everyone.

Thats why everyone was bolded

otester wrote:

Don't get involved with the shit that goes tits up once a month then.

Oligarchy is what we have now. The lack of regulation and outright deregulation has allowed several industries to consolidate all business in the hands of a few large corporations. How is that good for anybody? Regulation should be common sense, spur competition, and make sure no one is getting ahead by screwing over the environment, their workers, or anyone else. I don't understand how the concept of fair play is anathema to you in this regard.

Prime example, investment firms should not be able to cover their losses using profits or monies from commercial banking. This is pretty common sense, yet thanks to the repeal of glass-steagal, that's exactly what happened.

It was regulation in the first place that got us in this mess in the first place, way before the 70s etc.

It was the "alternatives to banks" that created the CDOs and were the first to go bankrupt..

I think the primary reason we care about the financial industry so much is Unemployment. Financial sector freezes, businesses don't have money. People lose jobs. Demand in economy falls, and everyone suffers.

We used to just go back to our farms when this happened, but it's a little inconvenient today.

[quote user=otester]Investment banks should be able to do what ever the fuck they want.[/quote]

The risky Investment banks were virtually unregulated. Private firms didn't even have to report to anyone. Once they started going bankrupt, outside banks and businesses couldn't get access to capital, and were collapsing.

It was the "alternatives to banks" that created the CDOs and were the first to go bankrupt..

I think the primary reason we care about the financial industry so much is Unemployment. Financial sector freezes, businesses don't have money. People lose jobs. Demand in economy falls, and everyone suffers.

We used to just go back to our farms when this happened, but it's a little inconvenient today.

otester wrote:

Investment banks should be able to do what ever the fuck they want.

The risky Investment banks were virtually unregulated. Private firms didn't even have to report to anyone. Once they started going bankrupt, outside banks and businesses couldn't get access to capital, and were collapsing.

It was the "alternatives to banks" that created the CDOs and were the first to go bankrupt..

I think the primary reason we care about the financial industry so much is Unemployment. Financial sector freezes, businesses don't have money. People lose jobs. Demand in economy falls, and everyone suffers.

We used to just go back to our farms when this happened, but it's a little inconvenient today.

[/quote]

In others words, everyone wants to be nigga rich.

EricManning wrote:

It was the "alternatives to banks" that created the CDOs and were the first to go bankrupt..

I think the primary reason we care about the financial industry so much is Unemployment. Financial sector freezes, businesses don't have money. People lose jobs. Demand in economy falls, and everyone suffers.

We used to just go back to our farms when this happened, but it's a little inconvenient today.

It was the "alternatives to banks" that created the CDOs and were the first to go bankrupt..

I think the primary reason we care about the financial industry so much is Unemployment. Financial sector freezes, businesses don't have money. People lose jobs. Demand in economy falls, and everyone suffers.

We used to just go back to our farms when this happened, but it's a little inconvenient today.

[/quote]

In others words, everyone wants to be nigga rich. [/quote]

There really is no reasoning with you is there?

otester wrote:

EricManning wrote:

It was the "alternatives to banks" that created the CDOs and were the first to go bankrupt..

I think the primary reason we care about the financial industry so much is Unemployment. Financial sector freezes, businesses don't have money. People lose jobs. Demand in economy falls, and everyone suffers.

We used to just go back to our farms when this happened, but it's a little inconvenient today.

I'm a bit tired of the Tory verbatim "we inherited this from the last government" as they use that to try and excuse their attacks on the working class to be quite honest. I hope that Pablo's election prediction is right.

I'm a bit tired of the Tory verbatim "we inherited this from the last government" as they use that to try and excuse their attacks on the working class to be quite honest. I hope that Pablo's election prediction is right.